Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

11th Judicial Region
Branch ____
___________________

xxx CIVIL CASE NO. ______

-FOR-
Plaintiffs,
DECLARATION OF NULLITY
-versus- OF ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE
OF TITLE
YYY
Defendant,
x-----------------------------------/

MEMORANDUM
DEFENDANT, through counsel, and unto this Honorable Court,
respectfully avers THAT:
I. SUBJECT MATTERS OF THE CONTROVERSY

1. The present case involves the following lots:

a. Lot _____ containing an area of _______________
SQUARE METERS, more or less, located at
________________, covered by ____________; and

b. ___________ containing an area of ________ square

meters, more or less, located at ___________, covered
by ____________________.

II. STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS

2. The subject properties described as

_______________covered by Original Certificate of Title No.
__________ and Original Certificate of Title No. _______
respectively, had been lawfully acquired by Defendant
through his predecessor-in-interest, in the person of the late
_______________.

3. _____________ is the original applicant for land titling with

the Bureau of Lands then the Ministry of Natural Resources
who filed his application1 on December 10, 1980.

1
Annex D-Answer” of Defendant’s Amended Answer with Counterclaim

1|Page
 4. The heirs of _____________, his surviving spouse
___________ and their daughter, ____________, executed
an Affidavit of Waiver of Rights and Subrogation 2 over their
rights to the two (2) parcels of public land in favor of the
Defendant.

5. The defendant legally acquired from the said original

applicant the subject real properties. Consequently,
certificates of title were issued in his favor. Afterwards, two
cases were filed against the herein Defendant involving the
said properties.

6. First, in Civil Case No. _______________ for Recovery of

Possession, Injunction, Damages and Attorney's Fees, the
trial court dismissed the complaint but the same was
reversed by the Honorable Court of Appeals in CA-G.R CV
No. ________ wherein the herein defendant is the prevailing
party. In addition, the Supreme Court in G.R No. _______
affirmed such decision of the latter.

7. Second, a criminal case for falsification under Docket No. XI-

_______________ was likewise filed by a certain ____
against the herein defendant. Nevertheless, the Office of the
City Prosecutor declared:
"Here, respondent ____ application was merely a
continuation of ________ (his predecessor-in-interest)
application on December 10, 1980, because of the Waiver
and Subrogation of Rights executed by the Heirs of
________. That ______ stated in his application for free
patent that the land is neither claimed nor occupied by any
other person is merely incidental and does not amount to
a false narration of facts.
WHEREFORE, for lack of probable cause, the undersigned
Investigating Prosecutor respectfully recommends that the
instant case be ordered dismissed.
SO RESOLVED. (emphasis supplied by the defendant)
11.1 Curiously, though this _________ was the private
complainant against defendant involving the above-
mentioned parcels of land for falsification.
2
Annex “D-Answer” of Defendant’s Amended Answer with Counterclaim

2|Page
 8. The instant case is the third case which involves the same
parcels of land covered by the subject original certificates of
title sought to be nullified by the Plaintiffs.

9. In other words, the complainants cannot feign ignorance of

the previous cases involving the same subject matter, i.e
____________.

10. This is an attempt to escape the doctrine of res judicata

and the ruling of the Court of Appeals affirmed by the
Supreme Court that the next case, if there be any, involving
the subject parcels of land is a case of “Reversion” under
Section 101 of the Public Land Act.

III. STATEMENT OF ISSUES

11. ISSUE: Whether or not there is a valid

complaint

11.1 whether the legal personality and the legal capacity to

sue and be sued was established in the complaint or
not.
15.2 Whether the Special Power of Attorney is valid under
the notarial law or not.
15.3 Whether the verification is correctly executed.
15.4 Whether ___________ is authorized to sign the
verification
16. ISSUE: Whether or not the complainant is
the proper party to institute the complaint which is by
nature a complaint for Reversion.
17. ISSUE: Whether the complainant is guilty
of bad faith considering the fact that there is already
a prior judgment involving the subject matters of this
case which are: ____________.
IV. DISCUSSION
Whether or not there is a valid complaint
18. There is no valid complaint in the instant case. The complaint
is the pleading alleging the plaintiff's cause or causes of action.

3|Page
The names and residences of the plaintiff and defendant must be
stated in the complaint.3 There is no showing in the complaint
that the plaintiffs have a cause of action other than the general
averment of fraud.
19. In all averments of fraud or mistake the circumstances
constituting fraud or mistake must be stated with particularity. 4
In Paragraph VII of the complaint, the plaintiffs merely alleged
that "It is apparent that defendant was never in possession of the
subject properties and employed fraudulent means to have the
properties registered in his name." (emphasis supplied by the
defendant)
20. The complaint did not specifically state how such alleged
fraud is being committed by the defendant. It did not conform
with the requirement of the rules. Besides, the falsification case
as stated in paragraph 11 of this Memorandum was already
resolved by the Office of the City Prosecutor. The allegation of
fraud, aside from being general, is nothing but a mere fabricated
and concocted story.
21. A cause of action is the act or omission by which a party
violates a right of another.5
22. Other than the general allegation of fraud, there is no
showing that the plaintiffs have rights whatsoever in the subject
properties. A cause of action has three elements, to wit, (1) a
right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under
whatever law it arises or is created; (2) an obligation on the part
of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such right;
and (3) an act or omission on the part of such defendant violative
of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the
obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff. 6
23. To note, there is already a Decision 7 pertinent to this case
whereby the Honorable Court of Appeals declared that the
defendant has a better right of possession over the subject
properties. Simply put, the defendant’s right was already
established, without any taint of doubt, in such a case.
Whether the legal personality and the legal capacity to sue
and be sued was established in the complaint or not.
3
Rule 6 Section 3 of 2019 Amended Rules of Court
4
Rule 8 Section 5 of 2019 Amended Rules of Court
5
Rule 2 Section 2 of 2019 Amended Rules of Court
6
China Banking Corporation vs. Hon. Court of Appeals and Armed Forces and Police Savings & Loan Association,
INC. (AFPSLAI), G.R. No. 153267 June 23, 2005
7
Defendant’s Exhibit 17

4|Page
24. Facts showing the capacity of a party to sue or be sued or the
authority of a party to sue or be sued in a representative capacity
or the legal existence of an organized association of person that
is made a party, must be averred.8
25. While it is true that the plaintiffs executed a Special Power of
Attorney in favor of their representative, _________, to file this
case, the same is not sufficient. The power of attorney itself did
not allege that the principals are capacitated to file this case.
Worse, their identities are dubious as the document itself (Special
Power of Attorney) did not state or attach competent evidence of
the principals' identities.
26. It is worthy of note that the alleged principal plaintiffs were
not presented as witnesses by the th____________-. Being the
purported lessors, the defendants then (being the lessee) should
have secured the attendance of any of these personalities.
27. Likewise, it is not an accident that this baseless complaint
was again resurrected from the realm of the dead since the
defendants _______________ (the Lessee) the lessee of the
herein principal plaintiffs in the present case are one the same
entity. They are reluctant to admit that a decision was already
rendered against them.
28. For the fear that this present case may be dismissed on the
ground of res judicata, the said corporation hired fictitious
persons to file this case. To hide their real identities, if any, they
executed the purported Special Power of Attorney without stating
therein the competent evidence of the identity of the principals.
Whether the Special Power of Attorney is valid under the
notarial law or not.
29. The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides that a notary
public should not notarize a document unless the signatory to the
document is in the notary's presence personally at the time of the
notarization, and personally known to the notary public or
otherwise identified through competent evidence of identity
(emphasis supplied by the defendant).
30. Section 12, Rule II of the same rules defines "competent
evidence of identity" as follows:

8
Rule 8 Section 4 of 2019 Amended Rules of Court

5|Page
Section 12. Competent Evidence of Identity.- The phrase
"competent evidence of identity" refers to the identification of an
individual based on:
a. at least one current identification document issued by an
official agency bearing the photograph and signature of the
individual; or

b. the oath or affirmation of one credible witness not privy to

the instrument, document, or transaction who is personally
known to the notary public and who personally knows the
individual, or of two credible witnesses neither of whom is
privy to the instrument, document, or transaction who each
personally knows the individual and shows to the notary
public documentary identification.
31. It is crystal clear that the above provision of the Rules on
Notarial Practice was violated inasmuch as the notary public did
not state or attach the competent evidence of the identity of the
principal plaintiffs.
Whether the verification is correctly executed.
32. The verification was improperly executed under the rules.
Section 4, Rule 7 of A.M. N0. 19-10-20-SC (2019 Proposed
Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure) provides:
Section 4. Verification. - Except when otherwise specifically
required by law or rule, pleadings need not be under oath or
verified.
A pleading is verified by an affidavit of an affiant duly authorized
to sign said verification. The authorization of the affiant to act on
behalf of a party, whether in the form of a secretary's certificate
or special power of attorney, should be attached to the pleading,
and shall allege the following attestations:
(a) The allegations in the pleading are true and correct
based on his or her personal knowledge, or based on
authentic documents;
(b) The pleading is not filed to harass, cause unnecessary
delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation; and
(c) The factual allegations therein have evidentiary support or, if
specifically so identified, will likewise have evidentiary support
after a reasonable opportunity for discovery.

6|Page
The signature of the affiant shall further serve as a
certification of the truthfulness of the allegations in the
pleading.
A pleading required to be verified that contains a verification
based on information and belief, or upon knowledge, information
and belief, or lack s a proper verification, shall be treated as an
unsigned pleading. (all underscoring is supplied by the
defendant)
33. As can be gleaned from the Special Power of
Attorney__________ is only authorized to "FILE". There is no
showing that he is also authorized to "SIGN" the verification.
34. The afore-quoted provision requires that the affiant in the
verification should have "personal knowledge" of the facts and
circumstances surrounding the case. An attorney-in-fact may be
allowed to file but definitely, he or she cannot sign the verification
unless he has personal knowledge of the allegations in the
pleadings.
35. In this case, the attorney-in-fact, ____________, has no
personal knowledge of the averments of the principals as well as
the truthfulness of the documents attached therein. The matters
that may be testified into by the attorney-in-fact are all hearsays.
36. It is clear from the document itself (SPA) that
______________is authorized only to "file" and has no authority
to "sign" the verification. Hence, the complaint is deemed as an
unsigned pleading.
Whether or not the complainant is the proper party to
institute the complaint which is by nature a complaint for
Reversion.
37. The complainants are not the proper parties to file this case.
At the outset, when the defendant filed his sales patent, the
subject properties form part of the public domain. This statement
was confirmed by the Honorable Court of Appeals in its Decision
which was in turn affirmed by the Supreme Court.
38. In the said case, the Court of Appeals declared:
"In this case, it is undisputed that Lot Nos. 1219 and
1220 were public lands when the plaintiff-appellant filed
the sales patent application. Thus, any subsequent action
questioning the validity of the award of sales patent on the
ground of fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation should be

7|Page
 initiated by the State." (emphasis supplied by the
defendant)
39. Hence, the instant case partakes of nature of reversion
inasmuch as the subject properties will be reverted to the State
in case the Honorable Court will nullify the subject original
certificate of titles. In this case, only the State can institute this
kind of action. Furthermore, the Court of Appeals, in the same
Decision, aptly states:
"Defendant -appellee has no personality to question the
validity of sales patent and the original certificate of title
issued to plaintiff-appellant. It is only the government,
through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), who may
file an action for reversion on the ground of fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation pursuant to Section 101 of the Public
Land Act.
Even assuming that the plaintiff-appellant indeed acquired
title to Lot Nos. _________ in bad faith, private persons
may not bring an action for reversion or any action which
would have the effect of canceling a land patent and the
corresponding certificate of title issued on the basis of the
patent, such that the land covered thereby will again form
part of the public domain"
40. Therefore, herein complainants have no legal personality to
file this case. Moreover, there is no cogent reason to disturb the
above-quoted Decision of the Honorable Court of Appeals
inasmuch as the same was already affirmed by the highest court
of the land.
41. Finally, the good Supreme Court Justice Mendoza
emphatically said that “it would be in the interest of the State
that there should be an end to litigation republicae ut sit litium.”9
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, it is most respectfully
prayed of this Honorable Court that the instant case should be
DISMISSED for utter lack of merit. Defendant likewise prays that
an appropriate sanction should be given to the complainants and
their attorney-in-fact for violating Rule 7, Section 3(1) of A.M.
N0. 19-10-20-SC (2019 Proposed Amendments to the 1997 Rules
of Civil Procedure).

9
Navarra v. Liongson, April 13, 2016 GR No. 2017930

8|Page
Other relief and remedies just and equitable in the premises are
likewise prayed for.
Respectfully submitted this ________ in Tagum City, Davao del
Norte, Philippines.

By:
Counsel for the Defendant

9|Page